ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

section 147 of the Act were not satisfied. The assessee also challenged the merit of the addition The assessee also challenged the merit of the addition The assessee also challenged the merit of the addition in Ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal. in Ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal. 8. At the outset, the assessee addressed

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2.\nThe CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8.\nWe have heard the both the sides

SALTWATER STUDIO LLP,MUM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम / Saltwater Studio Llp Nfac, Delhi 103, Corporate Corner, F Block, Northe Block, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia New Delhi-110001 College, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

reassessed. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), where the source of any receipt, deposit or investment in any assessment year is claimed to be an amount added to income or deducted while computing loss, as the case may be, in the assessment of such person in any year prior to the assessment year in which such receipt

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non \ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.” \n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8. We have heard the both the sides

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; under section 148A(b) providing opportunity to the assessee; thirdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass rdly, consider the reply under section 148A(c); and fourthly, pass a speaking order under section 148A(d) determining whether

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

8. In view of our finding that the reassessment itself is void, the In view of our finding that the reassessment itself is void, the In view of our finding that the reassessment itself is void, the grounds raised on merits grounds raised on merits—including the eligibility of deduction including the eligibility of deduction under section

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings under section 147 on the basis of the approval note under section 151 which the approval note under section 151 which is not signed by the specified is not signed by the specified authority Pr. CIT 29, Mumbai. authority Pr. CIT 29, Mumbai. 8

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment based on such documents must be made only under section 153C and not u/s 147. Therefore, the invocation of section 147 in this context is not legally valid. 5.4 The ld.AR has strongly relied upon the latest decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Jewellery 2025(2) TMI 870-Bombay wherein it held that

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

reassessment is separately provided in the Scheme. For issuing\nnotice, the term \"to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act\" is not relevant.\nThe Scheme provides that the notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be issued\nthrough automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy\nformulated by the Board as referred to in Section

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date o are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 f conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand abated or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand abated or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand abated

M/S. BIOBUILD DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

8. The crux of section 147 of the Act is the escapement of income which may be assessed or reassessed

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section \n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the \nAct’) as valid. \n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons \nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non- \ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.” \n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening under section 148 dated 29.03.2018 was legally unsustainable. “Reasons to believe that income chargeable to Tax escaped assessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening under section 148 dated 29.03.2018 was legally unsustainable. “Reasons to believe that income chargeable to Tax escaped assessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening under section 148 dated 29.03.2018 was legally unsustainable. “Reasons to believe that income chargeable to Tax escaped assessment

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were liable to abate. According to the learned counsel, the reasons recorded for reopening themselves indicate that the alleged escapement of income was noticed during the search proceedings and therefore the reopening under section 148 dated 29.03.2018 was legally unsustainable. “Reasons to believe that income chargeable to Tax escaped assessment